From: Ion GaztaÃ±aga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-25 23:02:01
On 22/08/2019 21:37, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
> Copying to dev ML.
> On 8/22/19 12:05, Gerald Wiltse via Boost-users wrote:
>> During an annual third-party audit of our source code, boost intrusive
>> was flagged as containing unlicensed code. Specifically, there are
>> several pieces of code in this file which are explicitly attributed to
>> external parties on external websites, which still exist and show no
>> Original sources:
>> I don't claim to be a license expert. I've read a lot over the years,
>> but this is the first time that I've actually been between an attorney
>> and a codebase having to figure out practical implications of a scenario
>> like this.
>> I first want to make sure that Boost committee is aware of this situation.
>> Second, I would like to know what the official conclusion would be from
>> the Boost Committee about the license implications in cases like these.
>> Maybe it has come up before and is well established. On the surface, the
>> implications seems ambiguous to me when: DEVELOPER_A takes unlicensed
>> code off the internet, prefixes it with a comment that says "Thanks to
>> DEVELOPER_BÂ ", then prefixes the whole file with a file-level copyright
>> notice that says "COPYRIGHTÂ DEVELOPER_A", and then says it's
>> distributed under BSL-1.0 license, and then the boost team
>> re-distributes the source code.
>> Internally at my company, there was little discussion about it.Â There
>> is no room for ambiguity, so the directive from management was to delete
>> the file from our SCM system completely and ensure it never is included
>> in our products.Â VERY fortunately, deleting it doesn't seem to have
>> broken our builds.Â In future cases like this, that's really not what we
>> want to be doing with your OSS libraries for obvious reasons.Â So, I'd
>> like to know if there's any chance this situation changes in a future
>> version of Boost (I.E., the code be removed/re-written with clean-room
>> approach, etc).
I didn't expect those snippets in the public domain of well-known
methods could be a problem, and I explicitly thanked the authors.
I could just remove that section as compiler-specified methods are
available using clz and friends (that's why your build was not broken).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk